Homeless traffic pointsmen in South Africa – What insurance companies have to say

With load-shedding rearing its ugly head once more, leading to out-of-service traffic lights and increased congestion, vagrants and homeless people have taken it upon themselves again to direct cars at busy intersections during outages.

There are many dangers present when following the instructions of these untrained traffic wardens, however, as one erroneous move could lead to a collision that was neither drivers’ fault.

The City of Johannesburg has attempted to formalise the sector, inviting these individuals to apply for a position as a “Points Official.”

Even so, the sheer number of dysfunctional traffic signals across major metros in South Africa means unqualified pointsmen are still rather ubiquitous, presenting several perils for road users heeding their instructions, mainly an increased risk of accidents.

Insurers respond

To see what the implications are if you are involved in a car crash as a result of an inexperienced pointsman, we asked major South African insurer OUTsurance for its stance on the situation.

The company has run its own pointsmen initiative since 2005 and possesses deep insights into these matters.

“Our clients are covered for road accident damage in line with our policy wording,” said an OUTsurance spokesperson in response to our queries.

“Damage caused as a result of poor traffic control by unqualified pointsmen is not an exclusion, so there would be cover for such an incident.”

As usual, the insurer said it assesses each claim on its own merits and that just the presence of an unqualified pointsmen alone isn’t enough to disqualify a claim.

OUTsurance’s words echo those of other major South African insurers.

Back in 2022 when the vagrant pointsmen issue initially emerged, we got in contact with King Price, MiWay, and Naked to hear their sides of the story.

King Price said it will pay out a claim on the condition that the client kept a proper lookout and acted with due care and caution.

It is assumed that the insured party acted with due care and caution until another party is able to prove that they did not.

“A reckless driver speeding towards an intersection where the traffic lights are out of order with disregard to anyone directing traffic in the intersection, in other words, [does] not act with due care and precaution [and] might find himself in a position where he will not enjoy any cover for a loss or accident,” said King Price.

Even with a qualified official directing traffic, the onus remains on the driver to keep an eye on their surroundings at all times to make sure they are not put in unnecessary danger.

“It is not for the insured to prove that he did keep a proper lookout. It is for anyone else to prove that he did not keep a proper lookout,” it said.

In the case of MiWay, the mere fact that a civilian point guard is on duty is not sufficient reason to reject a claim, it said.

A client’s cover is subject to compliance with the terms and conditions of the policy, and as long as they adhered to these rules and acted responsibly, MiWay said it will honor the claim.

“We take the information provided by the client in good faith, and unless there are other pieces of evidence available to confirm that the client did not exercise due care and precaution, we will act on the information as provided by the client during the claim process,” said the insurer.

“Most clients are covered comprehensively for accidental damage which will be covered if the terms and conditions of the policy are adhered to, and the severity of the actual damage would not have an impact on the client’s ability to claim for the damage resulting from such an incident,” said MiWay.

This is also the case where a qualified officer directed traffic and an accident occurred, as the responsibility remains on the MiWay client to act within the bounds of their agreement with the insurer.

The newest insurer on the block, Naked said the success of a claim in every scenario hinges on two main factors.

“When we assess a claim, the most important questions we ask are: Did you explicitly or deliberately break the law? Did you take reasonable care to avoid the loss?” said Naked.

“Irrespective of who is directing the traffic at a given time, those questions apply. We would be reasonable when evaluating a claim, provided you were driving with appropriate care and caution for the conditions on the road.”

Unless there is clear evidence of the law being broken or the driver failing to exercise caution, the claim will be approved, said Naked.

“That said, motorists should be aware that these citizens have not been trained to direct traffic,” the company said.

“They should be vigilant in following their directions. The rules of the road are that cars should treat the intersection as a four-way stop when the traffic light is out. However, we understand that it might be safer to follow the non-official pointsguard’s direction if other cars are doing so.”